"a clockwork orange" to "the purge"

I was watching the episode "the purge" and it seemed very similar to "a clockwork orange". The idea of having "goodness" forced upon someone with the custodion reminded me of the Ludivico treatment in ACO. The end of the episode even takes place on a stage much like the "demonstration" scene of ACO. I thought this was very interesting. I would like to see what others think because I'm sure I'm not the only person who made this connection.

Answers

I think it's a great idea-and possibly on the board already when
they 'chip' us. It could save us a lot of money on the penal system,
the security based businesses, ect. One consideration to give, it's
possible most people out there could never enjoy sex again.

Yes, the similarity in theme has been noted by others (pretty
obvious, I would think).

The movie A Clockwork Orange has been a key influence in my
conception of Aeon Flux since the very beginning. ACO is the
film that taught me that a film's narrative voice and the
filmmaker's point of view are two different things. It is also the
rare adaptation which surpasses the book on which it's based.
(For anyone studying film, I believe the comparison between the
book and Kubrick's movie is crucial in understanding film as a
distinct medium.) Burgess himself regards the novel's intent as
overly didactic. As far as the story's examination of free will and
morality, I agree that the case for free will is poorly presented. I
don't have the time or energy right now to go into an involved
discussion of Clockwork (for me, it's a process that would take
days).

To me, the question "does moral choice lose its meaning if the
capacity to do wrong is removed?" is a less interesting issue
than the more basic question "does moral conscience exist at
all?". If you believe it does-- how would you know if it wasn't
working? How much of our judgment is actual conscience and
how much of it is what we THINK must be our conscience
guiding us? Is the whole conscience thing an elaborate ruse we
play on ourselves? This is the question driving Trevor's
experiment-- more so than his desire to actually improve society.

I would've thought there must be some sort of evolved form of
conscience in animals like us; the kind of thing that stops babies
from being eaten. Wild animals follow their evolved instincts in order
to survive, as parents they instinctively make sacrifices for the well
beings of their children. Does moral conscience originate from family
relationships? Or just relationships in general? Is the human
conscience responding at all to the residual effects of an evolved
instinct? Does the state of your conscience depend on how much you
care about the survival of your fellow species? Or yourself maybe?

I came to think that what was going on in that one (The Purge)
was that Trevor was really using humans as the growth medium
upon which to improve the Custodian culture, as opposed to
what would be the other way around (Custodians being the
"germ" by which to improve the human culture), that one would
have expected.

Trying to detect evil in the human brain is a
very complicated thing to do; it has eluded neuroscientists for
centuries. Mainly, to pacify someone would also result in the loss of
numerous other higher functions in the brain and, in some case,
result in a "loss of identity" in a certain sense. We can make a
distinction that there is a different kind of neuro-chemistry behind
a man engaged in a bar fight and a man about to press the button to
launch a nuclear attack, in that the latter is more semantic and the
first is more primitive. But the original act can't be pinned on any
specific part of the brain. For example, to depress the button would
require motor skills -but to throw a punch would requre motor skills
as well. Indeed, a certain area may be acting more in one case and
less in the other, but there is so much activity occuring at the
moment of action that it is impossible (as of now) to discern higher
thought (If I gave scans to a neuroscientist, for example, he
wouldn't be able to tell me the person was watching Seinfeld at 7:30
in the evening after fighting with his girlfriend -more
realistically, he would only be able to tell you that his alertness
was at "this" level, that he was sleepy and relaxed, that the man was
processing speech and sound, etc.) The intent of evil resides in a
very special place in human intellect that, at its most fundamental
level, is the cooperation of unintelligent, thoughtless components
governed by mere chance and necessity in a system so complex that it
can supply instances where beings would need to kill themselves (or
others) to preserve itelf. Food for thought.

The definition of an act as "evil" or "good" resides in the cultural
context in which the act is committed. Even the most twisted
acts of villainy are somehow justified in the mind of the criminal.
A killer kills because he derives some gratification from it, or
believes that some greater good (simply the killer's own
notoriety, in some cases) will be the result. I don't think
evildoers are driven by the desire to do evil. Of course, this also
applies to acts of war carried out by nations.

"Conscience" is a simple label we place on what is a very
complex process of moral judgment. It is learned, not innate. It
symbolizes an ideal, rather than describe an organic human
trait. It's a human invention (a good one, my conscience tells
me), which is what Trevor is demonstrating in the story.

Yikes. I realized the trouble the above remarks contain. This is
meant as a rhetorical argument for the purpose of discussing
the Custodian program. I'm hardly qualified to answer
questions such as the existence of good or evil in the world. In
fact, I find myself defending either side of the argument
depending on the particular discussion.

When hard-liners describe a politcally-motivated conflict as a
struggle of "good vs. evil", however, my skepticism level rises.

Yeah -thanks for keeping me straight Mr. Chung,
regarding my wording. "Evil" can be anything, really. The most
important thing I think we can derive from the above is that human
beings define their own reality, despite social and genetic
influences; truth and meaning is contingent. Our brain is a box that
filters out the world for us -it can be tampered with. A girl on
drugs saying that she's "floating" -who am I to argue?? She may not
be floating in the physical world, but she is experiencing "floating"
in the privacy of her own mind, and that is something I cannot deny.
I don't know if serial killers try to justify their actions, or if
they are simply "unaware" of what they are doing; I'm sure there is
room for both. If I experienced the same specific instances, using
the same set of eyes, ears, etc. a murderer had, might I become one
too?? It puts a whole new spin on this concept of "evil."

I do agree, by the way, that thoughtless actions driven by
passion are often to blame for immoral behavior.

But-- a person's actions are usually the result of weighing the
relative values of alternative courses. An equation is made in
the mind by which the person feels justified in crossing moral
boundaries. This can include cases where criminals "see
through" the artificiality of moral codes. They conclude that all
morality is a charade and the result is Columbine or the recent
D.C. area sniper attacks.

What seems so deviant in those instances is that they're
premeditated yet so senseless. I guess "lacking conscience" is
an appropriate way to describe the participants. Otherwise, I
don't find the concept of "conscience" to be all that useful.

The Ludovico treatment (and the Custodian program) proposes
that society would be better off if such individuals, who seem
beyond rehabilitation, were to be rendered incapable of doing
bad. It's concerned only with the practical effect of a lowered
crimerate, not in instilling actual positive values in the minds of
criminals. If the argument against the treatment is that it renders
the criminals less-than-human by making them into virtuous/
virtual robots (clockwork oranges), I don't see the problem with
this, since imprisonment is just as much an impairment of their
humanity. In fact, if the only thing preventing us from committing
evil is the possiblity of being punished, then we are already
robots.

Maybe the problem is that a use of the word conscience as an
objective term, gives limited acceptance to the truth of its
subjectivity (we're not communists yet). The tendency is to alienate
difference, in most cases evil seems to be a term applied to
individuals rather than groups or nations. And rightfully so I guess,
because its tough to expect multiple individuals would carry
identical understandings of right and wrong. Although how applicable
is the term to a community that supports the brutality and or
fatality of a promiscuous (or otherwise suspected as such) wife: Evil
ethics, certainly different enough! Of course, they're religious, so
it's for a supposed greater good. To bad torture and death are
necessary parts of maintaining conformity towards their objective
morals.

If distinguishing from right and wrong isn't innate, then it probably
starts from the moment of birth, a rude awakening, from security to
insecurity. Or at least, from nothing to something. Its interesting
how some people describe a heroin rush: 'everything goes away', so
when coming down they experience withdrawal from being withdrawn? I
know you can talk this way about a lot of experiences (sleep?), I'm
just going with heroin because it's generally described as being at
the pinnacle of drug induced escape (Burroughs calls it a disease).
Anyway, I think it has a lot to do with how connected you feel with
other people, what gets you out of bed in the morning, so to speak.
Sometimes I wonder if people confuse total acceptance with apathy.
Total acceptance may be about giving in, but I donít think its about
giving up. I'd be more inclined to say its about opening up.

To me a conscience is created through the moral standards of the
society an indevidual lives in: in western calture, its "wrong" to
oppress females, or for a man to treat his family like an object he
owns, yet its ok to cheerfully despoil the earth and treat wild life,
and animals in general, as objects we own, as opposed to many other
caltures, where it is the other way around.

But everything has an origin, i mean, someone must have decided, at
the beginning of the certon calture, that "this is wrong, and this is
right", so to claim that conscience is always the effect of the
society's moral standards, is in some way wrong: if someone must have
thought about the "rules of morality" in the first place, thus,
starting a standard for that certon society, then it cant be the
result of moral standards, can it?

Bitch, i contradict myself too.

I guess the best assumption i can make is that there are special
indeviduals that direct society's standards, that arent part of the
group... and then i realize i sound like rascolnicov from crime and
punishment... this cant be good.

I think I see what your saying Zach, point me out if I'm skewing or
whatever. Society refers to a large amount of people, and its hard to
imagine they all have the same moral understandings in common. So in
the face of such diversity, prevalent moral standards are likely to
emanate from sources of societal control. To say "society's moral
standards" seems like a tricky sort of allusion if the moral
standards originate from a minority (Were not communists yet). And
yeah, I don't think there's anything particularly moral about
enforcing single minded morals.

The problem I see with people distancing themselves from "the group"
to take a point of power, is that the longer they stay out, the more
liable they become to things like estrangement. Time does after all
change. Fallible leaders increase the chances of revolution. Good
thing the president does have to eventually stand down (but what of
the other powerheads?). Although I would've liked to see how many
more went insane.

Ok this is off topic and i feel kind of stupid for asking it. Ive
read the book, Ive seen the movie, but i still just dont get the
phrase "a clockwork orange"
If anyone can explain to me what the metaphore is all about it would
help alot.

"I came to think that what was going on in that one (The Purge) was
that Trevor was really using humans as the growth medium upon which
to improve the Custodian culture, as opposed to what would be the
other way around (Custodians being the "germ" by which to improve the
human culture), that one would have expected." - Mark Mars/Dangerboy

Mark, that does sound cool. An understanding of machines will always
be complete, as opposed to an understanding of something like the
human brain which is greatly incomplete (Although how much does
Trevor know anyway). So enclose the human mind in a mechanical
system, then improve your mechanical system by modifying and adapting
in accordance to the human mind's resistance until both are in sync.
An extremely gradual process of trial and error I guess. To bad
experimentation on people seems necessary, but why not use those
troublesome criminals that would otherwise be killed by people like
Aeon anyway.

Actually I have no idea of what I'm talking about here. But yeah, I'm
still liking the mechanist thing: Only, not trying to reduce things
into mechanisms, but trying to grow mechanisms into things.

Alex resisted because his humanity could not be contained in such
simple confines (right?). But, in AF everyone seemed to be under
absolute control. Were the hosts mostly sedated or something? How
lucid were the Custodians inside their hosts?

Aaron (cure2200),
in French, "un(e?) mecanique orange" means a clockwork (a
complex mecanic machine) which doesnt work because of one
single part. Like, one screw is loose so the entire clock
stops. Think of Alex [main character in the book] as being
the loose screw! Because of him, the entire concept of a
functioning society fails. Interestingly, when Alex is in
jail [in the movie], he is the only one with an orange band
around his arm! :) And this is even more far-fecthed, but his
number in prison becomes 655321. The number 4 is missing, to
make his number 654321 (perfect!). You decide if it's a coincidence
that the name Alex has four letters!

One could possible say that for good to exist there must be an evil
element to contrast it, otherwise how would we know what "good" is.
This destruction of evil by the custodion may ironically be
destroying the good element as well. What do you think?

How would you feel about a moral system derived from the principle
that one's only responsibilities are to correctly recognize fellow
human beings as equals deserving considerate treatment and to refrain
from harming or wronging such recognized people?

Of course, this is just a long-winded version of ye olde golden rule.
However, consider: I think it's quite reasonable to assume that
everyone actually operates, more or less, according to the rule. The
fallacies which produce 'evil' actions are to fail to recognize the
'others' to which the rule should be applied and to accidentally or
willfully mis-represent (either to oneself or others) the consequences
of one's actions.

To put it more succinctly (and to quote Granny Weatherwax): "All the
trouble starts when you start treating people like things."